Cornered! is a blog devoted, most of the time anyway, to telecommunications: local and global issues, technology, people and trends from the perspective of someone who's been reporting, analysing and commenting on the industry since the dark ages (BC - before competition). Sometimes serious, sometimes flippant, sometimes frivolous. Controversial, analytical, informative, amusing, but never boring; a vehicle for examinations of important issues and observations on my encounters and experiences in an industry where polarised views and hyperbole are the norm.
Follow the Australian Telecommunications scene NEWSLETTER- FREE TRIAL Blog
Technology news and Jobs 
Cornered! SME involvement in NBN not a "peripheral issue"
Cornered! SME involvement in NBN not a "peripheral issue" | SME involvement in NBN not a "peripheral issue" |
|
| by Stuart Corner | |
| Monday, 15 December 2008 | |
  
Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
When it announced today, 15 December, that it had been excluded from the RFP process, Telstra said: "The reasoning given by the Commonwealth for the exclusion is that Telstra did not include a plan for how to involve small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the building of the NBN when Telstra lodged its NBN proposal on 26 November." It added that: Telstra considers it has fully complied with the RFP requirements (which did not require a SME plan to be lodged as part of the RFP proposal itself) and that the Commonwealth has used a peripheral issue to exclude Telstra." Telstra admitted that the SME plan had been submitted later on 4 December and Minchin has leapt to Telstra's defence saying: that the SME issue was "a trivial reason dreamed up by the expert panel and the Commonwealth for Telstra's exclusion." He said this was "quite remarkable" claiming that "the tender documents are so vague and open to multiple interpretations, they are not worth the paper they are written on." However on one reading the RFP was quite specific. Claus 1.5.32 states: "It is a condition for participation in this process that Proponents submit a plan outlining opportunities for Australian and New Zealand SMEs to provide goods and services to the project. Further details on this requirement are provided in clause 10.9 and section 6.1 of Schedule 2." And 10.9 states that: "The Commonwealth will exclude a proposal from further consideration if the Commonwealth considers that the proponent does not meet the following conditions for participation... Proponents must prepare a plan demonstrating how they will provide full, fair and reasonable opportunity to Australian and New Zealand SMEs to supply goods and services to the NBN Project." The crucial word here is 'proponent' which is open to interpretation that the plan need not be part of the initial proposal. The preceding clause, 10.8 is similarly worded but with this crucial difference. "Subject to clause 5.4.2, the Commonwealth will exclude a Proposal from further consideration if the Commonwealth considers that the Proposal does not comply with the following requirements: Proposals are written in English; measurements are expressed in Australian legal units of measurement; the Proposal includes a completed and signed Proponent's Declaration; and clause 9.3.3." Had the RFP used proposal in 10.9 Telstra would definitely have been non-compliant. Now the lawyers will be able to argue about it. |
Tags
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
